High Court · 2025

the regular practice in the Hon'ble High Court that two counsel advance submission simultaneously for one party but this request of the Court was not acceded to by the learned counsel for the informant.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.237 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 238, 140(1) of B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Atariya, District- Sitapur.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.08.2024 stating that the informant had lodged a report dated 13.07.2024 regarding his 24 years old daughter having gone missing. Later on, he came to know that some unknown person had enticed her away on 09.07.2024.

4. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the missing report dated

13.07.2024 referred to in the F.I.R. is not available in the case diary of the present case.

5. During investigation, the informant stated that Kiran is her daughter's friend. Kiran and Vishnu know the entire thing. Vishnu had informed him that Sameer (the applicant) had told him that the informant's daughter used to talk to a person named Shailesh. In response to a specific question put by the Investigating Officer as to who told Sameer that the informant's daughter used to talk to Shailesh, he could not give any reply. The Investigating Officer put another question to the informant as to when the informant had come to know that Shailesh had enticed away her daughter, why did he not lodge the F.I.R. mentioning this fact whereupon the informant stated that he had only suspicion that Shailesh had enticed away her daughter but he was not sure and, therefore, he did not make mention of this fact in the F.I.R.

6. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Shailesh who stated that he had gone to Kolhapur, Maharashtra about five months ago for working there. The informant's daughter use to make phone calls to him and asked him to take her with him. Shailesh had forbidden her to make phone calls to him. He had received information of the informant's daughter having gone missing while he was in Kolhapur, Maharashtra. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Kiran also and she stated that on the date the informant's daughter went missing, she had come to the shop where she works. She had asked her for her mobile phone on the pretext of talking to her brother. Kiran had given her mobile phone to her and she had talked to someone through her phone. On the following day, it came to light that the informant's daughter had gone missing. In response to a question put by the Investigating Officer whether the informant's daughter used to talk to Shailesh, she stated that the informant's daughter used to talk to Sameer (the applicant) and not to Shailesh. The applicant got married and, thereafter, he had reduced his communication with her but she continued to talk to him.

7. The applicant was taken into custody and in his custodial statement, he confessed that a quarrel had taken place between him and the informant's daughter for the reason that she used to talk to Shailesh and the applicant had killed her by strangulating her and had hidden the dead body amongst some bushes. The police claims that a skeleton was recovered from a jungle on pointing out of the applicant on 25.08.2024. The skull, some bones and hairs were lying separately. Some clothes were lying near the bones. As merely bones had been sent for postmortem examination, the cause of death could not be ascertained.

8. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

9. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that involvement of the applicant in the present case has been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted on 30.10.2024. He further submitted that during investigation one Ram Kishor stated that he had seen the deceased and the applicant standing near the railway crossing on 09.07.2024.

10. Learned counsel for the informant have also opposed the bail application and they have submitted that the skeleton was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant from amongst the bushes.

11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant claims that he had given a missing report on 13.07.2024 regarding his daughter having gone missing but the missing report is not made a part of the case diary; the informant claims that subsequently he came to know that some unknown person had enticed her daughter on 09.07.2024 but neither the source of knowledge nor the name of who had allegedly enticed away the informant's daughter was disclosed in the FIR; in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that he had come to know that Kiran and Vishnu know everything but in this statement also, he did not disclose the source of knowledge; the informant stated that Vishnu had told that Sameer had informed him that his daughter used to talk to Shailesh whereas Shailesh had implicated the applicant; as per the recovery memo, the skull, bones and hairs were lying separately and the clothes were lying nearby separately; the cause of death could not be ascertained; besides the aforesaid material, no other material had come to light during investigation and that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 25.08.2024 whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

12. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

13. Let the applicant- Sameer be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. . Order Date :- 6.5.2025 -Amit K- [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the regular practice in the Hon'ble High Court that two counsel advance submission simultaneously for one party but this request of the Court was not acceded to by the learned counsel for the informant.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.237 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 238, 140(1) of B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Atariya, District- Sitapur.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.08.2024 stating that the informant had lodged a report dated 13.07.2024 regarding his 24 years old daughter having gone missing. Later on, he came to know that some unknown person had enticed her away on 09.07.2024.

4. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the missing report dated

13.07.2024 referred to in the F.I.R. is not available in the case diary of the present case.

5. During investigation, the informant stated that Kiran is her daughter's friend. Kiran and Vishnu know the entire thing. Vishnu had informed him that Sameer (the applicant) had told him that the informant's daughter used to talk to a person named Shailesh. In response to a specific question put by the Investigating Officer as to who told Sameer that the informant's daughter used to talk to Shailesh, he could not give any reply. The Investigating Officer put another question to the informant as to when the informant had come to know that Shailesh had enticed away her daughter, why did he not lodge the F.I.R. mentioning this fact whereupon the informant stated that he had only suspicion that Shailesh had enticed away her daughter but he was not sure and, therefore, he did not make mention of this fact in the F.I.R.

6. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Shailesh who stated that he had gone to Kolhapur, Maharashtra about five months ago for working there. The informant's daughter use to make phone calls to him and asked him to take her with him. Shailesh had forbidden her to make phone calls to him. He had received information of the informant's daughter having gone missing while he was in Kolhapur, Maharashtra. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of Kiran also and she stated that on the date the informant's daughter went missing, she had come to the shop where she works. She had asked her for her mobile phone on the pretext of talking to her brother. Kiran had given her mobile phone to her and she had talked to someone through her phone. On the following day, it came to light that the informant's daughter had gone missing. In response to a question put by the Investigating Officer whether the informant's daughter used to talk to Shailesh, she stated that the informant's daughter used to talk to Sameer (the applicant) and not to Shailesh. The applicant got married and, thereafter, he had reduced his communication with her but she continued to talk to him.

7. The applicant was taken into custody and in his custodial statement, he confessed that a quarrel had taken place between him and the informant's daughter for the reason that she used to talk to Shailesh and the applicant had killed her by strangulating her and had hidden the dead body amongst some bushes. The police claims that a skeleton was recovered from a jungle on pointing out of the applicant on 25.08.2024. The skull, some bones and hairs were lying separately. Some clothes were lying near the bones. As merely bones had been sent for postmortem examination, the cause of death could not be ascertained.

8. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

9. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that involvement of the applicant in the present case has been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted on 30.10.2024. He further submitted that during investigation one Ram Kishor stated that he had seen the deceased and the applicant standing near the railway crossing on 09.07.2024.

10. Learned counsel for the informant have also opposed the bail application and they have submitted that the skeleton was recovered on the pointing out of the applicant from amongst the bushes.

11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant claims that he had given a missing report on 13.07.2024 regarding his daughter having gone missing but the missing report is not made a part of the case diary; the informant claims that subsequently he came to know that some unknown person had enticed her daughter on 09.07.2024 but neither the source of knowledge nor the name of who had allegedly enticed away the informant's daughter was disclosed in the FIR; in the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated that he had come to know that Kiran and Vishnu know everything but in this statement also, he did not disclose the source of knowledge; the informant stated that Vishnu had told that Sameer had informed him that his daughter used to talk to Shailesh whereas Shailesh had implicated the applicant; as per the recovery memo, the skull, bones and hairs were lying separately and the clothes were lying nearby separately; the cause of death could not be ascertained; besides the aforesaid material, no other material had come to light during investigation and that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 25.08.2024 whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

12. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

13. Let the applicant- Sameer be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. . Order Date :- 6.5.2025 -Amit K- [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench